Adam Seitz 
Wim Wenders’ ‘Land of Plenty’. A love-hate relationship with the USA [PDF ebook] 

Seminar paper from the year 2008 in the subject History Europe – Other Countries – Newer History, European Unification, grade: 2, 0, University of California, Berkeley (Department of History), course: U.S. Cultural and Intellectual History: Global Contexts, language: English, abstract: Wim Wenders’
 ambiguity, 
 the
 love‐hate
 relationship
 with
 the
 United
 States
 was
 the
 main
 force
 behind
 the
 production
 of
 “Land
 of 
Plenty”
 (2004). 
It
 was 
shot 
within 
three
 weeks 
with
 a
 small
 digital
 amateur
 camera, 
 and
 only
 because
 the
 production
 of
 his
 next
 film
 “Don’t
 come 
knocking”
 (2005) 
got
 delayed.
 The
 entire 
production
 of
 the 
movie 
took
 not more
 than
 six 
weeks.
 Without
 a
 doubt, 
 it
 is 
Wenders’
 most 
political
 film
 so 
far.
 As 
a 
Christian, 
 one
 (or, 
 as
 he
 stated
 once, 
 even
 his
 initial)
 idea
 for
 the
 film
 was
 “to
 set
 a
 radically
 contrary 
idea
 of
 being 
Christian
 against
 the
 fundamentalist 
Christendom” 
of
 the 
Bush
 administration.
 His
 ambition
 was
 to
 “fight
 against
 the
 treason
 [on
 democracy
 and
 freedom
 and]
 on 
all
 what 
is
 left 
of
 my
 childhood
 myth.” As
 stated 
in 
the
 press 
release
 for “Land 
of 
Plenty”, 
 it 
is
 a
 “film
 about 
the 
country 
he 
has
 been 
concerned
 with
 for
 many
 years
 and
 which
 he
 loves”, 
 a
 “very
 personal”
 and
 “sanguine
 film
 about
 those
 who
 still
 stand
 for
 this
 country’s
 possibilities
 […], 
 a
 political
 essay.” Typical
 for
 his
 artistic
 approach, 
 Wenders
 did
 not
 want 
to
 make
 an 
“angry”
 film, but 
one 
that
 could
 contribute
 to 
“healing”;
 a
 profound
 difference
 to
 films by Michael
 Moore, 
 a 
name 
often
 dropped 
in
 Germany
 in
 the
 context
 of
 “Land
 of
 Plenty”.
 Wenders, 
 as
 he
 stated
 himself, 
 wanted
 to
 explore
 the
 same
 territory
 as
 Moore, 
 but, 
 of
 course, 
 in
 his
 very
 own
 way.
 In
 direct
 comparison
 to
 Moore
, the
 Süddeutsche
 Zeitung, 
 for
 example, 
 grants
 Wenders
 “more
 complex, 
 sadly
 beautiful, 
 inconceivable
 images” and
 an
 overall
 more
 convincing
 approach.